DCP article demonstrating the Smiths were hard workers

[_Runtu]

You can be a hard worker and a grifter at the same time.

[_Joseph]

You guys, picking on Joseph Smith. He is just like the Paul Newman character in The Sting, a lovable con-man that everyone but the victim likes.

You aren't giving joethecoxman any credit at all.

[_Inconceivable]

jon,

Thanks for the information.

Yes it is amusing that the Book of Mormon would just happen to have a villian by the name of Lemuel. It would seem intentional that Smith would identify him as a subordinate tail wagger of the main evil character. To characterize him as one with no original thought.

When, in reality, Dufree was apparently the local law enforcement officer as well as community lifeline as the community grocer?

funny. obvious.

Is there any historical evidence that would demonstrate that this peace officer had a good reputation among his community?

[_badseed]

A friend in my ward growing up for whatever reason resisted performing what others would call an honest days work. In fact he went to such ridiculous lengths to avoid it I became convinced that he wouldve been ahead to just do 'the work.' He was just that sort of guy though. Always had a scheme and it often turned out to be plenty of work itself.

I think Smith's my have worked like this. Not afraid of hard work but maybe they focused enough on get rich quick schemes and other grand designs to appear shifty to some around them.

[_Kishkumen]

You are not playing fair. You can't look at the sum total of the witnesses lives, because that would not not allow the church to make the case it wants to make, and that's not fair!

Guilty as charged! I am just unfair enough to think that his support of other incredible claims should bear on the value of his witness of Mormonism.

Hey, I am not saying that the fact Martin was a credulous fool in matters of the spirit makes Mormonism false. I am saying that I wouldn't tout him as someone who lent Mormon claims any weight whatsoever.

This should not be that big of a problem, though. No one will be so lucky as to have a collection of absolutely unimpeachable witnesses with no exceptions. I am all for granting what is fair, but I don't think that we should be asked to make allowance for the credibility of a man who was a demonstrable kook.

Still, I give him kudos for acknowledging the problem and trying to deal with it.

He acknowledges it is a problem? I didn't realize that. In the time I have spent arguing with him over that issue he has consistently defended Martin as a credible witness and acted as though I were unreasonable to question Martin. Huh. Well, kudos to him if he does at least recognize it's a problem.